VENEZUELAN OMBUDSMAN IS NO MANDARIN, JUST MUNDARAIN

"We love all countries", said Mundarain,

when asked why Chavez gave billions to

other countries instead of spending them at home

WHERE DID ETHICS IN THE VENEZUELAN PUBLIC OFFICE GO?

From Washington.
One of our greatest Venezuelan tragedies has been the mediocre and often corrupt performance of the bureaucrats who surround Hugo Chavez. One of them is German Mundarain, the Ombudsman and member of the Venezuelan Moral Power. I cannot say, because I don’t know, that Dr. Mundarain has participated in the sacking of Venezuelan public funds that has taken place during the last nine years but I can say that his performance as an ombudsman deviates considerably from the ethical principles that his position requires.
I heard him talk recently in the Inter American Dialogue, a prestigious think tank based in Washington DC. His theme was not the defense of Human Rights but the promotion of the Constitutional reform that is being pushed down the throats of Venezuelans by Hugo Chavez. Dr. Mundarain spoke in his official capacity as Ombudsman, all expenses paid by the government, claiming that the reform was the best thing that could happen in Venezuela. He even admitted that he had been one of the co-authors of the document. Those who know what the duties of the ombudsman should be, this is, the defender of citizens against abuses of government power and against the violation of their human rights, find it unacceptable that he would be traveling to a foreign country, in his official capacity, to extol the virtues of an undemocratic reform.

WHAT DID HE SAY?
1. Mundarain said that the constitutional reform is legally valid and required to make our constitution more democratic and to align it with Simon Bolivar’s thought.
I comment as follows: the current constitution was imposed on Venezuelans only nine years ago. It was defined then as the best constitution in the world. Surprisingly now it needs to be substantially modified to make it more democratic. The reform, as presented, is deeply undemocratic, military oriented, really fascist. It has nothing to do with Simon Bolivar’s thought that was certainly not socialist and did not promote the unlimited rule of a man. On the contrary, he defined a country ruled without limits by a man as a “country of slaves”.
2. Mundarain claimed that the reform does not alter the texts of the core articles of the current constitution.
I comment as follows: Although it is true that the texts of these articles are not altered, the modifications introduced to other articles clearly violate the essence of the core articles, negating the democratic nature of the Venezuelan state and the principle of alternation in the public office.
3. Mundarain spoke of the reform as co-authored by his office.
My comment: In fact, the document was drafted with the cooperation of the members of the Moral Power and the president of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice. Am I insane in believing that these bureaucrats violated the ethics of their offices by generating and promoting a document that violates constitutional principles and the decisions of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice regarding unlimited re-elections? In Sentence 51, dated March 18, 2002, the Supreme Tribunal of Justice rejected the pretensions of unlimited re-election in public office as dangerous and anti-democratic. The reform also attempts at eliminating political plurality stating that socialism should be the only political philosophy, restricts the freedom of disposal of private property and creates a military-driven society with a popular militia that will be modeled after the Cuban and Iranian repressive bodies. And yet, Dr. Mundarain and bureaucrats who should be defending freedom, democracy and human rights openly support this reform.
4. Mundarain clearly stated that he had taken sides in favor of the reform because he refused to be neutral or a political eunuch.
My comment: What we demand from the ombudsman is impartiality, sense of fair play, decency. By taking sides Dr. Mandarin violates the oath of his office. As a simple echo of the president’s wishes he has, in fact, become a political eunuch.
5. Mundarain spoke of the reform as a preliminary project.
My comment: He should know that the current Minister of Defense stated that the reform was “not a proposal but an order” from the president and warned dissidents that protests would be smothered. (We will extinguish all small fires”). Mundarain should have acted in defense of citizens but kept silent.
6. Mundarain said that the loss of autonomy of the Venezuelan Central bank was normal and desirable and saw no problem in the direct handling by the president of national finances.
My comment: This loss of autonomy and the direct control of national finances by the president have already been in effect for some time. This has led to much corruption and to capital flight from a country where accountability and transparency have disappeared and where the Executive Power has raided the monetary international reserves. Direct foreign investment has stopped and private companies are leaving the country. The financial situation of Venezuela is fragile, in spite of its immense oil income.
All throughout his presentation Dr. Mundarain spoke of “us” and “them”, emphasizing his preference for the regime and his antipathy for the majority of the population that oppose the reform as unnecessary and undemocratic. This cannot be the language of an ombudsman. In my book he is no ombudsman but just a paid bureaucrat at the service of Hugo Chavez. He is no mandarin, just Mundarain.